>>3360831>Not op, but I can prove you wrong.>I can theorize and you should believe my theories over observationNope.
>Lenses vary in sharpness, right?Yes.
>So resolution is limited by the amount of detailt he lens can resolve, right?Sharpness and resolution are related but different things. Most modern lenses can comfortably out resolve 24mp crop at MTF10. But differences in the level of detail at MTF50 are visible even on older, low rez bodies like a 20D.
So you can have a pair of lenses where A is visibly sharper than B on an 8mp sensor, yet A does not produce a significantly different extinction resolution than B on a 24mp sensor.
>So if you use the same lens, on same MP count sensors, the larger pixel sites will be more forgiving on the lens than the smaller ones, right?No. That is not an accurate way to describe what is happening. Given FF, crop, the same lens, and the same framing you are standing in a different position with the FF camera. The end result is that the same detail in the scene (say a line pair) is projected at a different point of the lens' MTF curve. As a result there will be more contrast between the lines.
>Congratulations, you just realised that FF is always going to be twice as sharp as crop Neither
>>3360813 nor
>>3360825 are "twice as sharp", and sharpness is not extinction resolution.
>until lenses fully outresolveAt MTF10 most modern lenses do out resolve 24mp crop pixel density.
>It's just common sense pal, Observation trumps theory. Observation trumps "common sense." If you can look at the images and talk yourself to a conclusion different from what the evidence shows then you are a moron.
Note that in the attached DPReview pic the A73 is sharper, but also aliasing much sooner. This is why the XPro 2 scored HIGHER resolution at IR.
